The Myth of the Balanced Court

A number of Dem Senators, with their panties completely in a wad over the nomination of Judge Alito, have decried this nomination on the basis that it will disrupt the balance of the court. Here's what Teddy *hiccup* Kennedy had to say:

"If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

Republicans pounced on the statement, comparing it with Mr. Kennedy's statement 15 years ago during Judge Alito's confirmation hearing to the 3rd Circuit.

"You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest," Mr. Kennedy said then. "I think it is a very commendable career, and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge."

I've been searching the files to see if I can come up with Kennedy's statement of concern about the balance of the court when ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to replace conservative Byron White, but as of this point have not been able to find such a statement. Of course, there wasn't one. Dems are only concerned about balance if it's going to tip away from them.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a requirement for a balanced court, and neither will you find a requirement that one seat be given to a "swing" vote. The Dems have tried to turn Justice O'Connor into some type of modern Madonna of the judicial system, as though her inability to choose sides was the mark of some type of supernatural spirituality. Next thing you know they'll be worshipping her image when it appears on a burrito or sidewalk stain or something.

The Constitution gives the president the right to pick members of the court, and the Senate the right to confirm them. There are no other requirements. Let's get on with it.


Samuel Alito; Alito; SCOTUS; Supreme Court; Filibuster